It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Flight 93 or Flight 98? A second look.

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:22 PM
Typo or the truth?

Why would the CIA leave this supposed typo on it's website and in one of it's reports?

NIMA coordinated immediate crisis imagery requirements following the terrorist attacks on 11 September. In support of civil agencies, NIMA quickly assessed the damage at the World Trade Center complex, the Pentagon, and the United Airlines Flight 98 debris site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Within hours of the attacks, an imagery-derived damage assessment delineating ash and debris fallout from the collapse of structures at the WTC complex was provided to FEMA. NIMA sent analysts to FEMA's deployed field office in New York City to provide remote sensing expertise. FEMA officials stated that NIMA greatly assisted search and rescue efforts at the WTC complex.

Source - CIA website/Library

One would believe that of all agencys that the CIA would know what really happened on 911. So was it Flight 93 or another flight intended to serve as a diversion to the truth? I'm not going to speculate here but I find it very difficult to think that after all of the proof reading the CIA is known to do regarding it's own publications that it could overlook a simple aspect as the correct Flight number in question.

edit on 9/22/2010 by mikelee because: Fix link

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:31 PM
This has been around cyberspace for some time now but I forgot what the implications were. I'm pretty sure it was explained in a rational manner and there wasn't much to it.

Trust me, I find everything (but the weather) suspicious that day so I'm almost certain there wasn't much to this. I think the original paper was done by hand and the 3 was mistaken for an 8 when typed out. Something like that.

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:37 PM
reply to post by Human_Alien

I hear ya. I did a post on it last year but I actually called the CIA and reported this to see what they said. The lady told me "we will look at it and make any necessary corrections". Apparently it is correct(?)

IMO I think it deserves some scrutiny because this is an official document that serves as information regarding 911 events. Typo or otherwise. Have a good one.


log in